get_incident

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly indicates a read-only operation ('Fetch'), but does not disclose what happens on missing identifiers, authentication needs, or response structure (though output schema partially compensates). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and provides an immediate example. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is almost sufficient. It covers the core functionality and parameter semantics. The only gap is missing error behavior or success indication, but for a straightforward fetch this is acceptable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the parameter accepts either an incident number (with example) or a sys_id, which adds significant meaning beyond the raw 'string' type. However, it could be more precise about sys_id format (e.g., GUID).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Fetch'), the resource ('ServiceNow incident'), and provides a concrete example of the identifier format ('number (e.g. INC0010023) or sys_id'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_incidents (which searches by other criteria) and mutation tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use when you have the exact identifier, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor when not to use it. For example, it does not mention that search_incidents should be used if the identifier is unknown.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.